Journal of Nutrition Animal Diets/Enrichment Products...

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Nutrition Vol. 51 No. 3 November 1953, pp. 355-364
Copyright © 1953 by American Society for Nutrition
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Briggs, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Ortiz, L. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Briggs, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Ortiz, L. O.

Variation of Growth in Successive Experiments with Folic Acid-Deficient Chicks and the Influence of Aureomycin1

George M. Briggs, Mattie Rae Spivey and Ligia O. Ortiz

National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bethesda, Maryland

A study involving 12 successive 4-week experiments was made with female New Hampshire chicks fed a folic acid-deficient diet under as nearly identical conditions as possible. Mild folic acid deficiency signs were produced in the first half of the study, followed by a marked increase in the severity of deficiency signs in the latter half of the study in spite of no change in the diet. Dietary aureomycin markedly depressed the growth of the deficient chicks during the early experiments but had very little effect in later experiments when typical folic acid deficiency signs were produced by feeding the basal diet alone. In no instance did aureomycin increase the growth of the folic acid-deficient chicks. The differences in results were interpreted as possibly being due to changes in environmental or intestinal microflora, or both, over the course of the experiments, although other possibilities exist.


1 Part of these data were presented at the American Institute of Nutrition meeting, April 6 to 10, 1953 (Fed. Proc., 13: 410, 1953).

Manuscript received 9 July 1953.





Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]